Use of Autonomy-Supportive and Controlling Behaviors
Grounded in self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985, 2000), the coachathlete relationship model (Mageau & Vallerand, 2003) suggests that coaches can positively affect athletes’ basic psychological needs satisfaction and motivation through autonomy-supporting behavior. Yet, little resear...
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
University of Kansas Libraries
2016-12-01
|
| Series: | Journal of Intercollegiate Sport |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://journals.ku.edu/jis/article/view/10199 |
| _version_ | 1797448967290617856 |
|---|---|
| author | Tucker Readdy Johannes Raabe |
| author_facet | Tucker Readdy Johannes Raabe |
| author_sort | Tucker Readdy |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Grounded in self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985, 2000), the coachathlete relationship model (Mageau & Vallerand, 2003) suggests that coaches can positively affect athletes’ basic psychological needs satisfaction and motivation through autonomy-supporting behavior. Yet, little research has explored coaches’ objective use of autonomy support or the personal and contextual demands associated with such interactions. The current study used a mixed-methods design to describe coaches’ utilization, perceived benefits of, and challenges to the provision of autonomy support during an NCAA football season. Participants were nine assistant coaches at a Division I university. Each coach was live-coded at one practice each week for the duration of the 12-game schedule. At midseason, participants received a report of the percentage of interactions in teaching, organization, cheering, autonomy support, and controlling behaviors, as well as recommendations for improvement. Coach-level RM-ANOVA results demonstrated a variety in the number and magnitude of statistically significant changes in four of the five behavior categories; effect sizes ranged from small to large. Postseason interviews suggested coaches were attuned to the results and suggestions of the report, but that both personal and social influences (e.g., knowledge of SDT, competition with other coaches) as well as contextual factors (e.g., time constraints of practice, competition results) were also important in influencing behavior change. Thus, autonomy support is a viable and valuable pursuit in the context of collegiate athletics, but further development of practical, effective strategies is needed. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-09T14:18:32Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-41dd4a0094ee4e9089ee06b5c640cdad |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1941-6342 1941-417X |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-09T14:18:32Z |
| publishDate | 2016-12-01 |
| publisher | University of Kansas Libraries |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Journal of Intercollegiate Sport |
| spelling | doaj.art-41dd4a0094ee4e9089ee06b5c640cdad2023-11-28T18:45:53ZengUniversity of Kansas LibrariesJournal of Intercollegiate Sport1941-63421941-417X2016-12-019210.1123/jis.2016-0016Use of Autonomy-Supportive and Controlling BehaviorsTucker Readdy0Johannes Raabe1University of WyomingUniversity of TennesseeGrounded in self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985, 2000), the coachathlete relationship model (Mageau & Vallerand, 2003) suggests that coaches can positively affect athletes’ basic psychological needs satisfaction and motivation through autonomy-supporting behavior. Yet, little research has explored coaches’ objective use of autonomy support or the personal and contextual demands associated with such interactions. The current study used a mixed-methods design to describe coaches’ utilization, perceived benefits of, and challenges to the provision of autonomy support during an NCAA football season. Participants were nine assistant coaches at a Division I university. Each coach was live-coded at one practice each week for the duration of the 12-game schedule. At midseason, participants received a report of the percentage of interactions in teaching, organization, cheering, autonomy support, and controlling behaviors, as well as recommendations for improvement. Coach-level RM-ANOVA results demonstrated a variety in the number and magnitude of statistically significant changes in four of the five behavior categories; effect sizes ranged from small to large. Postseason interviews suggested coaches were attuned to the results and suggestions of the report, but that both personal and social influences (e.g., knowledge of SDT, competition with other coaches) as well as contextual factors (e.g., time constraints of practice, competition results) were also important in influencing behavior change. Thus, autonomy support is a viable and valuable pursuit in the context of collegiate athletics, but further development of practical, effective strategies is needed.https://journals.ku.edu/jis/article/view/10199motivationself-determinationmixed methods researchcoaching |
| spellingShingle | Tucker Readdy Johannes Raabe Use of Autonomy-Supportive and Controlling Behaviors Journal of Intercollegiate Sport motivation self-determination mixed methods research coaching |
| title | Use of Autonomy-Supportive and Controlling Behaviors |
| title_full | Use of Autonomy-Supportive and Controlling Behaviors |
| title_fullStr | Use of Autonomy-Supportive and Controlling Behaviors |
| title_full_unstemmed | Use of Autonomy-Supportive and Controlling Behaviors |
| title_short | Use of Autonomy-Supportive and Controlling Behaviors |
| title_sort | use of autonomy supportive and controlling behaviors |
| topic | motivation self-determination mixed methods research coaching |
| url | https://journals.ku.edu/jis/article/view/10199 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT tuckerreaddy useofautonomysupportiveandcontrollingbehaviors AT johannesraabe useofautonomysupportiveandcontrollingbehaviors |